Sunita Kumari v. Uniion of India and Anr

$-1 IN THE HIGH CSURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Dale qf hearinggnd Order; 23''d November, 201I + (1) W.P.(C) 805912011 & C.M.No. 18146/2011 SMT. SIJMAN Advocatq

(2) w.P.(C) 8Q601201 1 & C.M.No. 18147 t20II NIRAJ KLMAR

(3) w.P.(C) 80611201 1 & C.M.No. 1 81s 1/201 1 SHIBLAL SINGH + (4) W.P.(C) 8rr3l20rr & r82s3120r1 BHARTI GITPTA VCTSUS IJOI AND ORS W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8tL3,81L4,8LI5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2011 Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. \ + (s) w.P.(c) 811412011 & r82ss/20r1 SHASHANK KUMAR GUPTA ..... ResPondents Thrgugh: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar,Advocate + (6) W.P.(C) 81,1s12011 & C.M.No. 18257/2011 AKLAKFI RAHIM KHAN versu$ ..... ResPondents + (7) W.p.(C) 707712011 & r6Ls9/20rr VINEET KUMAR SFIARMA VCTSUS + (8) w.P.(C) 707812011 & C.M.No. 16161120II TRILOCFIAN SINGH BHATIA T]OI AND ORS W.P.(C)No.8059,8060,806L,8L13,8'J,I4,8LL5,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201r Page2 f

(9) w.P.(C)707912011 & C.M.No. 16163/2011 SIINITA KUMARI Advocale Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate I6T65I2OII Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, ..... ResPondents + (1l)w.P.(C) 763412011 & C.M.No. 1729312011 NIIELMANI versus

(12)W.P.(C) 763s1201 1 & C.M.No. I729sl20II ZONGPON LEPCHA Threugh: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay Tejpal, ..... ResPondents W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,81-L3,8LL4,81'15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, /9rsus I]OI AND ORS Through:

(10)W.P.(C) 708012011 & C.M.No. KULDEEP SINGH Through: v 7703,7704 &7705/2Qrt Page 3 d3 + (13) w.P.(C) 763612u1 & Q.M.No. 17297t2011 SMT.MUMTAZ + (14) w.P.(C) 77Q212011 & Q.M.No. 174s612011 SHIVA NAND + (1s) w.P.(C) 770312Q11 & C.M.No. 1745812011 ZURIP LAPCHA + (16) W.P.(C) 770412011 & C.M.No. 1746012011 MAHINDER SINGII Through: Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.day Tejpal, VCTSUS UOI AND QRS ..... ResPondents Petitioner versus IJOI AND ORS ....' ResPondents ? versus ..... ResPondents Through: Mr.JoydeepMazumdar, Advocate VEISUS ..... ResPondents W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8IL3,81L4,8M,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/201,L Page 4 -F (17) w.P.(Q) 170512011 & C.M.No. 1746212011 VINOD KLIi\4AR Mr.A.Maitri and Mr.Ajay TejPal, Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate Througfr: . Through: ;, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶1Whether the Reportqrs of local pup.rl may be allowed to see the judgment? I I To be referred to Repofter or not? )lNo. Whether the judgrnent should be I

¶3repofted in the Digest? ) SUNIL GAUR. J. (Oral)

¶1lhe relief sought in this bunch of 17 petitions is to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners who are running PCO Booth at the Railway Station to sell other miscellaneous items to properly earn their livelihood as the case put forth by the petitioners is that running of PCO booth is a losing proposition now a days with the wide-spread use of rnobile phones and cordless phones, etc.

¶2Petitioners claim that they are running the STD/ISD PCO booth since the year 1991 onwards and are earning their livelihood there-from and now a days it is becoming increasingly diffrcult to make both ends meet due to scant use of PCO booths and so they had made representation to respondents to permit the petitioners to sell other W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061, 8'J"!3,8LL4,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705120t1 Page 5 tu miscellaneous items as well from their PCO booths. Few of the petitioners in this bunch of petitions are physical handicapped and their representation fgr perrnission to sell other items frorn the STD/PCO booths at the Railway Station was considered by the respondents and was rejected on 16.11 .20II by observing as under:- "As per the existing policy guidelines, STD/PCO Booths are allottedfor a specific purpose and booth holders cannot be permitted to undertake other activities. To sell additional items, multipurposg stalls qre already available at the stations v,hich provide better facility to passengers. Therefore, the reqorc$t for ;elling additional items ,fro* these booths is not considered desirable.

¶3The fate of the representations af the petitioners under the general categc-rry, who are running S:|D/PCO bQoths at the Railway Station, has not yet beqn decided by the respondents.

¶4Learned counsel fbr the petitioners draws attention of this court to the decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 169911987 titled as Sudhir Madsn & Ors vs. M.C.D. & Ors., decided on 6.2.2007, wherein the issue of existing PCO Booths being allowed to switch over to other trade was considered and what was said by the Apex Couft in the aforesaid decision is as under:- "The existing PQO booths will also be allowed to stttitch over to other trades as the PCOs have become outdated due to inception or mobile phones/cordless phones."

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the aforesaid dicturn of the Apex Court the respondents are duty bound to perrnit the petitioners to switch over to other trades as running of PCO booths at the Railway stations is a losing proposition. At this stage, leamed counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court to a W.P.(C) Nq.8Q59,8060,8061,8tI3,8LL4,81"15,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/2OLL Page 6 3-Circular dt. 14.5.2004 of the respondents and in particular to clause 8.7 thereof, which stipulates that the maximum period for running of such booth is 10 years and it is stated that in most of the cases, the said period has already elapsqd and by taking a hurnanitarian view extensions have been already granted in some cases and now, if any extension would be granted, the same wquld be in terms of the aforesaid Circular which holds the field as of today.

¶6Be that as it may. The question of extension of license granted to petitioners or to other similarly placed PCO booth operators is not being considered in these petitions. What is being considered is whether in view of the rejection of 16th November, 2011 of the representation of seme of the petitioners, who were physically handicapped, whether the respondents can be salled Upon to consider afresh the clairn of the petitioners for switching ever to other trades in terms of the dictum of the Apex Court as referred to above.

¶7Learned counsel for the respondents states that as and when such representations are received from the petitioners, the same would be considered by affording a hearing to the petitioners and by passing of a speaking order thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representations.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions states that the comprehensive representations would be made to the respondents within four weeks.

¶9While leaving the question of extension of license to the PCO booth operators open, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents that as and when the respondents receive representations from the petitioners for switching over to other trades for W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8113,8114,8115,7077,7078,7079,7080,7634,7635,7636,7702, 7703,7704 &7705/20Lr Page 7 \0 the remaining liCense period, the same would be considered in view of the dicturn of the Apex Couft, as refened to above.

¶10With afqresaid observations, these petitions as well as pending applications are disposed of with no orders as to costs.

¶11A copy of this order be givgn dasti to counsel for both the sides. iL/ aF NOVEMBER 23.2OII pkb W.P.(C) No.8059,8060,8061,8LI3,8114,81L5,7077,7078,7079,7O8O,7634,7635,7636,7702, a UNIL GAUR) 7703,7704 &7705/2OLr Page B